[LuxuryMode]

I think you're missing the whole point. The DataTreasury example illustrates a fundamental problem with patents which is only exaggerated when it comes to software and software "processes." The problem is, as the article pointed out, that the patents are construed to be so broad that basically anyone can be said to be infringing it. To patent the idea itself of 'scanning checks with a device and sending it to a server' is pretty absurd. A copyright is more appropriate. If you copied the code, etc then you violate the copyright. But to say that anyone that implements this idea is in violation ... that's not encouraging innovation. It just encourages running to the patent office as fast as you can.

[justinsb]

I don't think it's fair to say that "anyone can be said to be infringing it". I think if you're a bank that's using scanned check imaging instead of mailing around checks, you're (likely) infringing. If you're building a social network, you won't be. In other words, the people who are (accused of) infringing are precisely those that were the target market for DataTreasury; there's also no accusation that the patents have been enforced against anyone other than the banks.

The US banking system feels pretty backwards in terms of its reliance on checks where Europe has adopted electronic transfers. If the banks actually wanted to innovate here, they'd introduce a real electronic transfer system. The idea of scanning checks and sending around images (and presumably one day constructing virtual check images electronically and sending those) strikes me as remarkably backwards, but nonetheless a very clever solution to a real-world problem.

[drivingmenuts]

Maybe I missed part of the story, but didn't it say that banks implemented their own internal systems? If so, how does that violate a patent?

If you build a better mousetrap and try to sell it, but I decide to build my own copy of the mousetrap for my own use, wouldn't that be non-infringing?

[justinsb]

That's the big difference between patents and copyrights. With a copyright, you can only infringe if you copy code. With patents, you can infringe if you implement the same idea. I think it makes many people uneasy with the patent system if someone built the same system without knowledge of a patent. The non-obvious clause is supposed to protect against that (and there are valid flaws in the implementation of this aspect of the patent system!)

It's not clear to me whether in this case the check scanning systems were in fact independently invented; there's certainly a hint in the article that meetings took place and the banks only implemented the idea once it has been disclosed to them ('willful infringement' results in triple damages, which could well explain the magnitude of the licensing amounts)

[chc]

If I have a patent on the better mousetrap, that is absolutely infringing — you are building my patented invention without my approval. I think you're conflating patents and copyrights.

[drivingmenuts]

Yeah, I think I wass. Thanks to you both for clearing that up.

[drallison]

I think you should review the protections that copyright provides. I believe your concept of copyright does not match that provided under the law. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf